Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download

Comparison Overview

Kenlan Schwiebert Facey & Goss, P.C.Kenlan Schwiebert Facey & Goss, P.C.
VS
DLA PiperDLA Piper
Kenlan Schwiebert Facey & Goss, P.C.

Kenlan Schwiebert Facey & Goss, P.C.

US

Last Update: 27/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.kenlanlaw.com
782/1000Fair

Full service law firm

NAICS:54111
NAICS Definition:Offices of Lawyers
Employees:17
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
DLA Piper

DLA Piper

160 Aldersgate Street, London, EC1A 4HT, GB

Last Update: 03/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.dlapiper.com
782/1000Fair

DLA Piper is a global law firm helping our clients achieve their goals wherever they do business. Our pursuit of innovation has transformed our delivery of legal services. With offices in the Americas, Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Asia Pacific, we deliver excepti...

NAICS:54111
NAICS Definition:Offices of Lawyers
Employees:13,333
Subsidiaries:15
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Kenlan Schwiebert Facey & Goss, P.C.

Kenlan Schwiebert Facey & Goss, P.C.

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA
DLA Piper

DLA Piper

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Law Practice Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Kenlan Schwiebert Facey & Goss, P.C. in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Law Practice Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for DLA Piper in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Kenlan Schwiebert Facey & Goss, P.C. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Kenlan Schwiebert Facey & Goss, P.C. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - DLA Piper (X = Date, Y = Severity)

DLA Piper cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Kenlan Schwiebert Facey & Goss, P.C.

Kenlan Schwiebert Facey & Goss, P.C.

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
KEN306072525
DLA Piper

DLA Piper

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

Between Kenlan Schwiebert Facey & Goss, P.C. company and DLA Piper company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between Kenlan Schwiebert Facey & Goss, P.C. company and DLA Piper company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between Kenlan Schwiebert Facey & Goss, P.C. company and DLA Piper company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between Kenlan Schwiebert Facey & Goss, P.C. company and DLA Piper company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between Kenlan Schwiebert Facey & Goss, P.C. company and DLA Piper company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between Kenlan Schwiebert Facey & Goss, P.C. company and DLA Piper company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between Kenlan Schwiebert Facey & Goss, P.C. company and DLA Piper company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between Kenlan Schwiebert Facey & Goss, P.C. company and DLA Piper company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between Kenlan Schwiebert Facey & Goss, P.C. company and DLA Piper company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between Kenlan Schwiebert Facey & Goss, P.C. company and DLA Piper company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between Kenlan Schwiebert Facey & Goss, P.C. company and DLA Piper company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between Kenlan Schwiebert Facey & Goss, P.C. and DLA Piper, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between Kenlan Schwiebert Facey & Goss, P.C. and DLA Piper, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - Kenlan Schwiebert Facey & Goss, P.C. or DLA Piper ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - Kenlan Schwiebert Facey & Goss, P.C. or DLA Piper ?
Between Kenlan Schwiebert Facey & Goss, P.C. and DLA Piper, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between Kenlan Schwiebert Facey & Goss, P.C. and DLA Piper, which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66064
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/handler.go sendFile handler opened files using a cleaned path but derived the authorization filename from raw req.URL.Path, so a trailing slash could bypass .goshs ACL-file protection and block-list checks. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-66063
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/updown.go multipart upload handler split part.FileName() on / but did not reject .., allowing an unauthenticated upload with filename .. to create a file outside the served tree. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-64863
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.4, the httpserver/server.go wdGuard handled WebDAV MOVE as a write-only method and did not enforce --no-delete, allowing WebDAV clients to delete or overwrite files via MOVE with Overwrite: T. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-62325
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. From 2.1.3 until 2.1.4, the sftpserver/sftpserver.go password handler used Username != "" && Password != "", so running goshs with -b 'admin:' -sftp and no -fkf left both SFTP authentication handlers unset and allowed unauthenticated file access. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-59921
SUMMARY

Netty is an asynchronous, event-driven network application framework. Prior to versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final, HttpPostRequestEncoder constructs multipart HTTP request bodies by directly concatenating user-supplied filenames and field names into Content-Disposition MIME headers without validating or sanitizing CRLF characters (\r\n). Since MIME headers are delimited by CRLF, an attacker who controls the filename can inject arbitrary MIME headers into the multipart body part. The root cause is that neither the encoder nor the FileUpload implementations' setFilename() methods, which only check for null, neutralize CRLF characters before the filename is embedded into the header. This issue has been fixed in versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1